This article from the EFF seems naive at best. They argue that Tier 1 ISPs should not police speech, which is fair, but their proposed solution is to just let hate sites sit around and radicalize people, then have the law deal with the few who cross the line between protected speech and criminal harassment.
Below is an extensive list of all the times 'just throw more cops at the problem' has solved anything:
1. literally not once ever.
2. See 1.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/isps-should-not-police-online-speech-no-matter-how-awful-it
The entire reason for-profit companies are policing speech is because the law makes it so they are literally the only ones who can. The big kicker is how they felt the need to put "Solid enforcement of existing laws" knowing full they literally don't exist.
It's like if some dude was stood on a street corner giving people maps to the local banks, instructions on how to rob a bank without getting caught, and a free loaded gun, then we concluded the best solution here is to have the police just try extra hard to find and arrest anyone who has previously robbed a bank.
@malwaretech I think censorship is always bad, especially when corporations do it since it leads to fascism. The policing of speech is already completely biased in favor of the corporations and stakeholders, not the people.
@malwaretech No it doesn't, because you can have a website which is against fascism as well. You also mentioned there are no laws, actually there are, most countries have laws which deals with threats of violence against people or groups of people.
@modrobert lmao. This is some dumb ass libertarian "debate them in the marketplace of ideas" braindead nonsense.
@malwaretech I'm still wondering at what point you became a corporate shill? You used to have integrity, what happened? Signed too many NDAs?
@modrobert If that's your take away then 😆
@modrobert As it turns out, having a fascist website on the open internet propagating fascist ideology also leads to fascism.